🏙 Taking a serious (first) look at Donald Trump's 'Future Cities' idea

We need more bold plans from our politicians

Item: Modern cities and flying cars might sound like the makings of an episode of the 1960s cartoon The Jetsons, where a fictionalized family flew around in Orbit City. For former President Donald Trump, however, it’s the foundation of a new set of futuristic policy proposals. Trump’s plan calls for holding a contest to design and create up to ten new “Freedom Cities,” built from the ground up on federal land. It proposes an investment in the development of vertical-takeoff-and-landing vehicles; the creation of “hives of industry” sparked by cutting off imports from China; and a population surge sparked by “baby bonuses” to encourage would-be-parents to get on with procreation. It is all, his team says, part of a larger nationwide beautification campaign meant to inspire forward-looking visions of America’s future. - Politico, 03/03/2023

Whenever I hear Donald Trump announce a big, splashy idea — like his new “Freedom Cities” concept — I’m reminded of the obviously ridiculous, $12 trillion tax cut plan that he announced back in 2015 when first running for president. (Actual tax cut: $2 trillion.) Or his proposed 2,000-mile border wall, paid for by Mexico. (Actual Great Wall: 452 miles, paid for by American taxpayers.) Even by the standards of salesman and politician puffery, these were absurd proposals.

But building new American cities, ceteris paribus, is not an inherently absurd notion. True, the idea of start-up or “charter” cities typically involves the creation of new city-scale administrative zones in developing countries, to be governed by some external entity. The premise: Better rules and institutions can foster faster economic growth.

The US, on the other hand, is a wealthy and relatively well-governed nation. The need for charter cities is less obvious. And people already have a choice between different styles (and effectiveness) of governance. Certainly the governance of Austin, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City is different than Baltimore, Detroit, and San Francisco.

That said, one wonders why, for instance, there are no big cities between Los Angeles and San Francisco. As urban planner Nolan Gray told me last year:

I think there's something to be said for building cities, especially in places that enjoy proximity to job centers and trade routes, to say nothing of temperate year-round weather or stunning natural amenities. California's central coast checks a lot of those boxes, yet it lacks a major city, and not for lack of demand. … If you actually look at the stretch of coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco, you will see that much of the region is thickly settled with suburban sprawl. You could easily build million-plus cities on the existing footprint of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, or Santa Cruz without touching anything even resembling nature. … Many millions of people would likely love to live in this region. The reason they aren't moving there is that they can't: Many of these towns and suburbs have some of the tightest restrictions on building that you will find in the US.

M. Nolan Gray @mnolangray

There should really be two, maybe three million-plus cities on this stretch of coast. Instead, it's a NIMBY paradise anchored by a city whose tallest building is a parking garage. https://t.co/PHUdbor7x4

In the case of the California coast, you can see plenty of potential demand, but there are also artificial restraints on meeting that demand. In Trump’s proposal, however, it seems more of a case of trying to create demand in “left behind” places (and where the federal government also owns lots of land) that probably aren’t near job centers and trade routes, places without fantastic weather or stunning natural amenities. Far simpler is making housing more affordable in high-wage, high-productivity cities. (Or creating a special economic zone near a poorly governed city, such as the two entrepreneurs want to build a futuristic city-cryptostate in Silicon Valley.)

Which gets to another point: Would a start-up city really attract families as Trump contends? Or would such an endeavor instead attract risk-taking young people who might also be able to work remotely. So a lot of young techies?